Are you an atheist?

[Mike375]

Where the atheists are wrong is not recognising that atheism is also about faith.

The one thing for sure is nobody has a clue how it all started. Thus you either have faith that a superbeing was involved or Hawkings and Co will get the answer. Either way, both sides are based on faith.

 

[Rabbie]

Where the atheists are wrong is not recognising that atheism is also about faith.

The one thing for sure is nobody has a clue how it all started. Thus you either have faith that a superbeing was involved or Hawkings and Co will get the answer. Either way, both sides are based on faith.

My lack of a belief in a superbeing does not require me to believe that Hawkings etc will get the answer. I don't know how it started but I don't think it was by a superbeing. It would take a jump of faith on my part to believe in a superbeing which I can see no need for.

 

[Mike375]

My lack of a belief in a superbeing does not require me to believe that Hawkings etc will get the answer. I don't know how it started but I don't think it was by a superbeing. It would take a jump of faith on my part to believe in a superbeing which I can see no need for.

It can require just as big a leap in faith for some people to think there was no superbeing involved.

My point is that either side is based on faith.

A bit of agnostic there in your post

 

[Alc]

My lack of a belief in a superbeing does not require me to believe that Hawkings etc will get the answer. I don't know how it started but I don't think it was by a superbeing. It would take a jump of faith on my part to believe in a superbeing which I can see no need for.

Exactly what I was thinking.
You do get a few people who, for some reason, see it as an either/or argument: God or the Big Bang - pick one.

 

[Rabbie]

It can require just as big a leap in faith for some people to think there was no superbeing involved.

For some people maybe - for me I would like there to be a God but I don't believe there is.

My point is that either side is based on faith.

Definitely on the religious side. Not necessarily on the atheist/agnostic side

A bit of agnostic there in your post

Atheism means not believing there is a god/gods. Agnoticism means not knowing one way or the other. By those definitions I am an atheist - like it or not.

 

[Mike375]

Exactly what I was thinking.
You do get a few people who, for some reason, see it as an either/or argument: God or the Big Bang - pick one.

Actually the Big Bang has the big support from superbeing side because it puts a beginning on the deal. In fact Paul Davies had to pull his horns in when asked about pre Big Bang because he said something along the lines of a god etc.

But it is an either/or thing because it either all started according to physics or something/someone outside that arena was involved.

 

[Alc]

But it is an either/or thing because it either all started according to physics or something/someone outside that arena was involved.

I believe wholeheartedy that no gods exist. None. That makes me an atheist.

I have no idea how the universe was created. It requires no faith at all to not believe something. There may well be a scientific explanation other than the big bang, or the big bang theory may be perfectly correct. I don't know enough about it to say. I do think there is a scientific explanation for it, I just don't know it.

If you want to pay yourself on the back and say that that proves that people have to have faith in science, go ahead, but it's a weak definition of 'faith', at best.

 

[Mike375]

Rabbie

From your post.....I don't know how it started but I don't think it was by a superbeing

Do you want to change that to....I don't know how it started but I know it was not a superbeing

 

[Pauldohert]

I cannot believe how long the debate concerning Alisa's supposed analogy between a flat earth and God lasted. Did anybody actually read her post?
I am sorry to bring it up again but it was directed at me. The actual post is below.


So you see it was a post referring to challenging belief's held by the intelligensia, not abot comparing the belief in God with whether Sun went round the Earth or Vice Versa.



Brian

I can only imagine you didn't read the subsequent posts from Alisa, cos she does indeed compare the belief in God with whether Sun went round the Earth or vice versa. Quite explicity, alligning beleivers with those who stuck by a belief despite the evidence. And more subtely alligning herself as the person with the evidence.

Which is quite wrong.

 

[Rich]

One pet hate I have is the commentating on the values of a thread without actually contributing to it.

"This thread is so long because it's full of people talking crap and the sum total of my contribution to it is to just point that out. I don't have enough time to explain why people are wrong, but I do have enough time to say that they are"

To me that's just lazy and of no value.

Alisa might be wrong. I might be wrong. Anybody could be wrong. But at least the pages have been filled by those willing to contribute and not empty commentary on how crap those contributions actually are.

I sound a little irked and I think I am. Think I'm going to go have a lie down.

Mmm, I thought it was the theists who had to pick up the toys after the atheists dropped them, sounds more to me like the theists throwing the toys out of the pram.

 

[Rabbie]

Rabbie

From your post.....I don't know how it started but I don't think it was by a superbeing

Do you want to change that to....I don't know how it started but I know it was not a superbeing

Mike, lets cut a deal. I'll write my posts and you write your's. Seems reasonable to me

 

[Mike375]

Mike, lets cut a deal. I'll write my posts and you write your's. Seems reasonable to me

Yep, we can do that deal

 

[Alisa]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/study-the-effects-of-sero_n_114112.html

Here is an interesting little tidbit . . . Maybe I just don't have enough seratonin to believe in god.

 

[oumahexi]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/study-the-effects-of-sero_n_114112.html

Here is an interesting little tidbit . . . Maybe I just don't have enough serotonin to believe in god.

Whoo hoo! So I'm not a loony tunes, just a happy chappie! Thanks Alisa. I must admit, I had thought there might be a link, but I thought maybe the other way around, spirituality caused high serotonin, but there we go, other way round, works for me.

For those who would like to try, you can raise your serotonin levels with certain meditations, no need to try illicit or dangerous drugs, they are definately not recommended

 

[BarryMK]

But if you were wrong, would you be quick to come back and tell us?

That really is a loaded question!

If I am wrong and find that there is existence after death I would definitely want to come back and let you all know (just like the great Houdini who vowed he would and we ain't heard from him since he popped it either) but so far I don't believe anyone has, unless of course you believe in the resurrection of Jesus and for me one claimed instance of such an incredibly momentous event 2000 years ago doesn't fall into the evidence tray.

Personally I reckon a 'Jesus somebody' probably lived around 2000 years ago and was a charismatic and compelling orator and natural leader with a benign philosophy. I also reckon he had a very advanced and creative PR company both before and after his death!

In short a basis of fact embellished with successive layers of self-serving (for those who wanted the power to control their fellow citizens under the cloak of religion) bullshit. I don't have an issue with Jesus' philosophy just with the claptrap religion that surrounds it. As an atheist I can practice the basic tenets of most religions - they are, after all, generally common sense rules for co-existing with my fellow man.

My take on it and not issued as a challenge to those who choose to believe otherwise.

 

[oumahexi]

If I am wrong and find that there is existence after death I would definitely want to come back and let you all know (just like the great Houdini who vowed he would and we ain't heard from him since he popped it either) but so far I don't believe anyone has,

Maybe you're not allowed to come back and tell

Personally I reckon a 'Jesus somebody' probably lived around 2000 years ago and was a charismatic and compelling orator and natural leader with a benign philosophy. I also reckon he had a very advanced and creative PR company both before and after his death!

Yogi’s can shut their metabolism right down, far enough that in more primitive times they would have been pronounced dead. Through self hypnosis, it is possible to reduce the pain threshold to amazing proportions. There is some evidence that Jesus was not just an ordinary Jew, but that his branch of Judiasm was closely liked with the Qabala. Their teachings and studies into the world of magick (what is now known as science), would have almost certainly broached these subjects.

Many of the “miracles” offered in both the old and new testaments can now be explained by a combination of science and misinterpretation. Qabalists were revered teachers in their times, it could well be that this man was his time’s equivalent of our Steven Hawkins.

On the other hand, maybe he was the messiah and will be back any minute now to smote us all for our blasphemy.

 

[BarryMK]

Maybe you're not allowed to come back and tell

Or maybe there’s nothing to tell?

On the other hand, maybe he was the messiah and will be back any minute now to smote us all for our blasphemy.

If that’s so it’s a pity for millions of poor buggers that he didn’t come back in 1914

 

[oumahexi]

Or maybe there’s nothing to tell?

oh, you're so synical

If that’s so it’s a pity for millions of poor buggers that he didn’t come back in 1914

Or 1939, or 2001, or even now would be good

 

[Alisa]

It can require just as big a leap in faith for some people to think there was no superbeing involved.

My point is that either side is based on faith.

Mike, didn't we have this conversation about 1000 posts ago? Or am I imagining things?

It doesn't require a leap of faith to think something that is based on the odds is extremely likely.

To bring up Barry's point, if no one has ever come back from the dead, is it more likely that there is or isn't an afterlife? If god has never once popped up in all of human history, is it more likely that he exists or doesn't exist? You only need faith to make an assumption that is against the odds, i.e., there is an afterlife, or there is a god. You do not need faith to see that the odds are extremely long.

Think about it this way. If there were not a god, would we ever see him? The answer is an absolute no. Now what if there were a god, would we ever see him? The answer could be yes or no, right? So given the fact that we have never seen him, that indicates that the odds are in favor of possibility 1, there is no god. There is no "faith" involved in this type of evaluation, just simple common sense.

 

[Alisa]

On the other hand, maybe he was the messiah and will be back any minute now to smote us all for our blasphemy.

Nah, he will probably just strike your computer again . . .